Jim is right, this is very dependent on the specific fiction at hand. So, if you can give an example we can talk about what might be good stakes.
But you do have some generic options you can think in with The Sprawl:
Tick a clock (“Show them the barrel of the gun”)
On a 7-9, hard bargian, ugly choice: “Either you agree to what they want (even if you don’t mean it) or you have to raise your voice and yell over comms to make your disagreement known and the [Mission/Legwork/some other] Clock ticks up one. Either way, what does it look like?”
6-: What does it look like how you respond? Either way, this is noticed and the [Mission/Legwork/some other] ticks up.
Escalate (“Make their lives complicated now”)
On 7-9: You either create a scene by disagreeing with each other and [street gang (during legwork)/patrol (in mission)] gets the jump on you or you begrudgingly agree and just notice in time and slip away.
On 6-: While you are distracted by the argument, [street gang (during legwork)/patrol (in mission)] gets the jump on you.
Ask them “Tell them the requirements or consequences and ask”
On a 7-9, worse outcome: You can still grudgingly go along with them or openly disagree, either way, why do are they now convinced they can’t trust you anymore? include both players and ask them to collaborate how this is becomes clear in the fiction
On a 6-: The same but the rift is between you and all the other PCs; how do the rest find out?
In any case, any kind of PC vs PC requires all cards on the table, i.e. no secrets. Remember, player vs player doesn’t exist in PbtA; players need to be working collaboratively with each other, especially when their characters are butting heads and then it can be great fun.
The other thing to keep in mind: persuasion is not mind control, anyone is free to change their mind at a later time.